The Meiri is in fact following what the Rambam wrote in his commentary on the Mishnah. The Rambam writes that the brocha before the Torah is "Asher Bochar Bonu" and the brocha after the Torah is "Asher Nosan Lonu Toroso" so according to the Rambam this is exactly the same as the Brochos that everyone makes before and after every public Kerias Hatorah.

The Gevuras Ari on Yoma 68b, where this Mishnah is also cited, writes that according to Rashi the KG does not make a brocha before Kerias Hatorah because this Keriah is not a Chovas Tzibur like every other public reading of the Torah, which is incumbent on the entire community. Rather, this is a personal obligation for the KG whilst the public are not obliged to hear it and may go outside if they wish. Therefore the Brocha "Asher Bochar Bonu" that the KG said like everyone else in the morning is sufficient and Chazal did not make a Takona for him to say this before Kerias Hatorah.

KOL TUV

Dovid Bloom

Follow-up reply:

Gevuras Ari writes that the proof that the Tzibur are not obliged to hear the Kerias Hatorah of the KG is from the end of the Mishnah Yoma 68b, which states "Somebody who sees the KG when he reads the Torah does not see the cow and goat being burnt, and somebody who sees the cow and goat being burnt, does not see the KG when he reads. This is not because he is not allowed to, but because there is a long way between the two events which take place simultaneously". This all suggests that it is optional to be either at Kerias Hatorah or to see the cow and goat burnt.

Dovid Bloom

Another proof that it is not an obligation on the community to hear the Torah reading of the KG:-

I saw that the Beis Meir on Yorah Deah #279 (on Taz) is cited as bringing Rashi Yoma 35b DH u'Bilvad that the reading of the Parsha by the KG is called "Avodas Yochid"; it is the service of an individual, not the community.

With this source from Rashi, it is easier to understand why Rashi writes that he does not say the brocha before reading the Torah.

Dovid Bloom

The Tiferes Yisroel says there is no dispute between Rashi and Rambam:-

1) Tiferes Yisroel, Sotah 7:41, comments on the Mishnah; that the 1st of the 8 Blessings after reading the Torah is a brocho "on the Torah". He writes that

"there is one brocho after the Torah [apart from the brocho before]".

This comment of Tiferes Yisroel is terse, and he does not write that his comment is specifically following the Rambam (which at first sight would be what one would think, since Rashi made no mention of a brocho before).

2) However Tiferes Yisroel Yoma 7:18 (where the same Mishnah appears) explains at greater length. He writes again that the KG says one brocha after the Torah, apart from the brocha before. He continues that this now represents one of the 8 brochos of the Mishnah. Even though they are 2 brochos, the Mishnah considers them as one, because the Mishnah only mentions brochos that the KG says after reading the Torah which are additional to what everyone else says after reading from the Torah. TY cites Gemara Megilah 21b which quotes a Braisa that states that the original practice for every Kerias Hatorah was that only the very first of the people to read from the Torah made a brocho before the reading and only the very last person to be called up made a brocho after Kerias Hatorah. The Gemara concludes that nowadays everyone who is called up to the Torah makes a brocha both before and after because of a Gezera that if people come into shul in the middle of Kerias Hatorah they might miss the brochos and think that a brocho is never required before and after the Torah.

3) This is why only one brocho is mentioned in our Mishnah; because the KG only made one brocho more than the average person in the time of the Mishnah, and it is only extra brochos that our Mishnah counts. TY must be explaining according to Rashi (unlike what we thought at first that he explains according to the Rambam) because the Rambam; both in his Commentary to the Mishnah in Sotah and in his Commentary to Yoma; writes that the KG said 2 brochos. Therefore the Rambam must be learning that the Mishnah also counts brochos which everyone says; not only the KG; so TY is follwing Rashi. At any rate, in practical terms, Rashi and Rambam both hold that the KG said a brocho both before and after, which is not like the Gevuras Ari who says that according to Rashi the KG did not make a brocha before.

Have a great Lag beOmer!

Dovid Bloom

According to Tiferes Yisrael there are differences between the way Rashi and Rambam explain even though the practical conclusion is the same:-

1) It is worth pointing out that whilst according to Tiferes Yisroel both Rashi and Rambam agree that the KG says a brocha both before and after the Torah, nevertheless there is a significant difference between the way they express this. If we look at Rashi, in both the Mishnah Sotah 40b and the Mishnah Yoma 68b, he only writes that the KG says the brocha after the Torah and makes no mention of the brocha before the Torah. In contrast, in the Perush Hamishnayos of the Rambam; both in Sotah and in Yoma; he writes explicitly that the KG says both the brocha before and after. In addition in Mishneh Torah Hilchos Avodas Yom Hakipurim 3:11 the Rambam writes that the KG says the brocha both before and after.

2) TY Yoma 7:18 writes that the Tana only counts brochos that the KG says over and above what everyone who reads from the Torah says, which is why he only mentions the brocho after the Torah. But why is there a difference between Rambam and Rashi whether they count every brocha that the KG says, or only the one mentioned in the Mishah? I want to suggest an answer to this question based on a comment made by the Beis Yosef on Tur Orach Chaim #10 DH u'L'Inyan who writes that "Rashi is a Mefaresh, not a Paskan". The way of Rashi is to explain the text he is elucidating. Rashi is not a Posek, who is concerned with teaching us the Halachic conclusion that emerges. Therefore, in our scenario, Rashi only explains the Mishnah snd since the Mishnah is only discussing brochos other than those standard for a person reading from the Torah, Rashi only mentions the brochos listed in the Mishnah, even though this is not a comprehensive account of all the brochos that were actually said. In contrast, we know that the Rambam certainly is a Posek, and here we observe that even in his Perush Hamishnayos; which is essentially a commentary, not a book of Psak; nevertheless the Rambam has an eye towards ensuring that we get correct the facts of what actually happened in practice.

3) One of the things that we can learn from this sugya is that we should not jump to conclusions what Rashi's Halachic opinion is on a certain issue, merely from his commentary on the Mishnah and Gemara.

Dovid Bloom